
PAPERS READ 



BRFOBE THB 



FRIDAY, NOVEIVIBER T, 1019 



Wntoi^ Ijewelf, an jjeen in i)« oton toorft0f)op." 



THE LOYALISTS IN THE REVOLUTION, 
By Frank R. Dipfenderffer, Litt.D. 

MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING. 



VOL. XXIII. NO. 9. 



PRICE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER COPY 



LANCASTER, PA. 

1919 



/ 



PAPERS READ 



BKFOBE THB 



m soci 



FRIDAY, NOVEIVIBER T, 1019 



•* J^fBtocg fittsitlf, as seen (n t« oton toorfestop." 



THE LOYALISTS IN THE REVOLUTION, 

By Frank R. Diffenderffer, Litt.D. 

I' 

MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING. 



VOL. XXIII. NO. 9. 



PEICE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER COPY 



LANCASTER, PA. 

1919 



4 4^ (CtA 
Monograph 



£7^77 



y i rauo4.ox' 

JUL 1 1920 






The Loyalists in the Revolution ------___155 

By F. R. DiFFENDERFFER, LiTT.D. 

Minutes of the November Meeting --------167 



The Loyalists in tlie ReYolution. 



Second Paper. 

By frank R. DIFFENDERFFER, Litt.D. 

Nowhere was there more timidity and indecision than in our own state. 
The very best men were to be found on both sides when the final rupture 
came. While Franklin may be regarded as the head and front of the Whig 
element, some of his warmest personal and i^olitical friends were Loyalists. 
For a long time, the cause in Pennsylvania was in great doubt. In addition 
to the fact that the ruling element of the population was almost ex- 
clusively British, the further fact that almost two thirds of the population 
were, from conscientious scruples, opposed to a resort to the arbitrament of 
arms for a solution of the existing troubles, is to be considered. The Quakers 
were men of peace and consequently Loyalists almost to a man, although of 
course there were some prominent exceptions. Joseph Galloway, an excellent 
witness, when examined by a committee of the House of Commons, declared 
that, had General Howe issued a proclamation when he entered Philadelphia, 
3.500 men from Philadelphia and New Jersey would have rallied to his stand- 
ards, and that more than fifty prominent gentlemen went to him and proffered 
their services in disarming the disaffected, but could not get even so much as 
an interview from him. Even John Dickinson did not seem to know his own 
mind. Between 1765 and 1775, he wrote much and ably as a Whig, but in 1776, 
he opposed the Declaration of Independence and was an uncompromising an- 
tagonist of the scheme of independence ; and there were many more like him. 

On October 16, 1775, while the Congress of the Colonies was sitting in 
Philadelphia, sluggish and irresolute, hardly knowing its own mind, the newly 
elected Legislature of Pennsjdvania was organized. Chosen under a dread of 
independence, all of its members who were present subscribed the usual en- 
gagements of allegiance to the king. A few days later the Quakers presented 
an address in favor of "the most conciliatory measures," and deprecating 
everything " likely to widen or perpetuate the breach with the parent state. "i 

Could any facts show more completely the prevailing diversity of public 
sentiment, or the chaotic condition of affairs generally? 

It is a notable fact that in July, 1777, the Supreme Executive Council of 
Pennsj^vania instructed Col. William Henry of Lancaster Borough to disarm 
all those citizens of this county who had not taken the oath of allegiance to 
the cause of the Colonies. Col. Henry was the father of that patriotic son of 
Lancaster, who ran away to Boston to join Arnold's expedition against Canada 
and who later became Judge of our County Coiirt. 

iBan., Vol. 8, p. 119. 

(155) 



(156) 

In Virginia, everything was doubt and uncertaintj'. As late as March 15, 
1776, Joseph Reed, of Pennsylvania, wrote to Washington as follows : " It is 
said the Virginians are so alarmed with the idea of independence, that they 
have sent !Mr. Braxton on purpose to turn the vote of that colony, if any ques- 
tion on that subject should come before Congress." In reply, Washington 
wrote of the Virginians that " from their form of government and steady at- 
tachment heretofore to royalt3% they will come reluctantly^ into the idea of in- 
dependence." All this was within three months of the period when Congress 
Tictually pronounced the independence of the colonies. 

In North Carolina, the two parties were prettj' evenly divided. She was 
nionarchially inclined from the beginning, and received large accessions to her 
np^tive Loyalists from Scotland when the Stuarts were overthrown. Igno- 
lance prevailed. According to Josiah Martin, her last roj^al governor, there 
were only two schools in the colony in 1775. Even the Whigs were unstable, — 
sometimes on the right side, and, when the King's troops came along, on his 
side. Thomas Jefferson, in his later years, directly accused William Hooper, 
a North Carolina delegate to Congress in 1776, of being a rank Tory. There 
are good reasons to doubt the truth of the accusation. That there were many 
men of the genuine stamp in the state, the Mecklenburg Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, written a jear before Jefferson's fully attests. 

South Carolina. 

No state perhaps was more torn by political dissensions than South Caro- 
lina. Many of her citizens were immigrants from various parts of Europe, 
and opposed independence. After Charleston was taken, the people flocked bj' 
hundreds to the royal banner. Sir Ilenrj'^ Clinton reported to his home gov- 
ernment that the entire State had submitted to the English government and 
was again a part of the British Empire. It was owing to the gallantry of a 
few men like Marion, Pickens and Sumpter, that the Loyalists did not overrun 
the country. The fact is, the political condition of the State was deplorable. 
With the two sides so evenly divided, and the country overrun in turn by both 
the Whig and the Loyalist troops, the people were embittered by their suffer- 
ings and were led to commit all manner of outrages on each other. The rules 
and courtesies of civilized warfare were often ignored, and murder and rapine 
took the place of honorable warfare. General Green, a most competent wit- 
ness, described the condition of things as follows : " The animosities between 
the Whigs and Tories render their situation truly deplorable. The Whigs seem 
determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thou- 
sands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more 
violence than ever. If a stop cannot be put to these massacres, the country 
will be depopulated in a few months, as neither Whig nor Tory can live." That 
eminent jurist, John Marshall, says in his " Life of Washington " that " the 
Iieople of the South felt all the miseries which are inflicted bj'' war in its most 
savage form. Being almost equally divided between the two contending 
parties, reciprocal injuries had gradually sharpened their resentments against 
each other, and had armed neighbor against neighbor, until it had become a 
war of extermination. As the parties alternatelj' triumphed, opportunities 



(157) 

were alternately g-iven for the exercise of their vindictive passions." In con- 
clusion, it can truthfully be stated that the Loyalists were in the ascendant in 
South Cai-olina until the close of the \^^ar. It also deserves to be mentioned 
that, when the British forces, under General Prevost, invested Charleston, 
there was a day's neg-otiation to adjust the terms of surrender, after which 
'• the correspondence closed with the proposal on our part of neutrality to the 
town and state during- the war, the peace to fix its ultimate condition. "2 
This proposed action was a clear proposal to desert the cause of the colonies, 
with a probable return of the royal government. 

In Georg"ia, the cause of independence was more favorably regarded, but it 
was far from being good. That colony sent no delegates to the first Conti- 
nental Congress, but was represented in the second. It was at first found dif- 
ficult to found a liberty party, although in the end Georgia sent 2,679 troops 
into the Continental service, — the smallest mmiber contributed by auA' state, 
Delaware alone excepted. But her loj-al governor. Sir James Wright, was an 
able man and raised a considerable foi-ce of Loyalists for the King's service, 
and many Whigs were compelled to seek refijge in the adjoining states. 

On the whole, it may safely be said that the Loyalists were more numer- 
ous in the south, in Pennsylvania and New York, than in the New England 
colonies. 

When we come to examine the attitude of the newspaper press at the out- 
break of the war, we find that a very considerable portion was arra.yed against 
independence. There were thirty-seven papers published in the colonies in 
1775, of which seven or eight espoused the cause of the crown. 

Treatment of the Loyalists. 

As the contest proceeded and the Whigs got the upper hand, sterner meas- 
ures were adopted. They were compelled to give up their ai-ms, to take the 
oath of allegiance, to undergo imprisonment, to confinement in irons and to 
labor on the construction of barracks. Later, banishment was resorted to. 
Pennsylvania sent some of her Loyalists to Virginia and New York. New 
York transported some of her own to Pennsylvania, to New Hampshire, Con- 
necticut and Massachusetts. The most dangerous were placed in jail after 
transportation, but others were allowed some privileges on parole. Generally, 
the treatment was all the circumstances would allow. Medical attendance 
was given the sick. Frequently their families were allowed to join them in 
their exile. Sometimes the starving wei-e fed. But at times the treatment 
was more severe, varying often with the fortunes of the war.3 

Later, trials for treason were ordered. Confiscations of property were 
begun, and the gallows w^as called upon to do its ignoble work. Agents were 
appointed to keep watch on suspected or open Loj^alists, to ascertain their 
possessions and to report and suggest the course of action to be taken. The 
State of New York realized from confiscations of personal propei'ty nearly 
$400,000 — Spanish dollars. The total loss to the Loyalists was no doubt fully 
double; including all kinds of property, the amount was estiinated at $3,600,000. 

2 Lee's History of the War in the South. 

3 Flick's Loyalism in New York, pp. 131-122. 



(158) 

One result followed this confiscation of lands that was beneficial to the State 
at large. The Patroons, the holders of vast landed estates, were nearly all 
Loyalists. When their lands were confiscated they were sold in small parcels. 
The land of James De Lancey was sold to 275 individuals, and the 50,000 acres 
of Roger Morris to 250 persons. All this served to weaken the feudal element 
which prevailed in that State, and unquestionably resulted beneficially to the 
general welfare. 

Out of a population of 185,000 in the State of New York at the outbreak 
cf the Revolution 90,000 were Loyalists. Of these 35,000 are believed to have 
left and 55,000 accepted the inevitable and remained, becoming valuable mem- 
bers of the young state.* 

Complete separation only became the final issue early in 1776. When this 
new issue did come, the Loj^alists denounced it as revolution and anarchy. 
Parties then divided on stricter lines. Every man had now to choose the 
master he would se'rve ; whether he w^ould remain a subject of Great Britain, 
or by declaring himself a citizen of the newly born nation become a traitor 
to the crown. There could be no middle ground. Those who tried to remain 
neutral received no consideration from either party. It was a forced i.ssue. 
The Loj'alists found their cause a hard one to accept. Most of them were 
Americans, as were the Whigs, and proud of it into the bargain. They felt 
the action of the crown as keenly as the latter and also desired justice and 
relief, but had hoped to secure both from the King and his ministers. 

Town and district committees were appointed with authoritj^ to ari'est 
and examine the disaffected persons and deal Avith them according to the 
degree of their disaftection. I will cite the result of the first examinations 
held in New York as a fair example of the views of the persons investigated 
everywhere. 

The first person of prominence examined was Whitehead Hicks. He said 
he held crown offices and had sworn allegiance to the king, and hence would 
not take up arms against him. He was not willing to be taxed by Parliament, 
yet he had refused to sign the association. He believed arms should be used 
only as a last resort, and he was not prepared to say that all other measures 
had been exhausted. The committee decided that he was not friendlj^ to the 
American cause and put him on parole. 

William Axtell did not believe Parliament had a right to bind the Colo- 
nies in all cases, nor did he approve of the program of the opposition. He 
wished to remain neutral for the sake of his property, and objected to being 
paroled. He was turned over to the Provincial Congress. 

Captain Archibald Hamilton said he loved America, that he had fought. 
bled, and been in irons for her, that he wished her free and happy, and would 
not draw his sword, against her; neither Avould he unsheath it against his 
brothers on the King's side. He was dismissed on his parole of honor. 

John Wildt denied the right of Parliament to levy internal taxes in Amer- 
ica, but would not take up arms against the King. His other answers were 
so equivocal that he was released iinder a £2,000 bond. These are fair samples 
of the sentiments of the extreme type of Loyalists in 1776.5 

4 Flick's Loyalism in New York, p. 159 and 182. 

5 Flick's Loyalism in New York, 69-72-73. 



( 159 ) 

The sentiment in favor of " political liberty " was strong, but at the same 
time it was crude and not consistent. Those who were loudest in proclaiming 
it were often found denying it to their Loyalist neighbors. Every Tory of 
prominence was likely to feel the vengeance of his Whig neighbors when op- 
portunity ofPered. The latter learned it in the wanton destruction of their 
printing presses and types ; it was manifested in the burning of individuals 
in eflfigy, continually in tarrings and featherings, ridings on rails through the 
streets, the breaking of windows, the stealing of live stock and personal ef- 
fects, and the destruction of property generallJ^ To refuse to accept the 
violent views of the Whigs was to be " disaffected," and even a suspicion of 
that was suiUcient to cause arrest and imprisonment, all at the victim's own 
expense. When necessaiy the property of the victim was confiscated and used 
to meet the expenses. 

What Did Loy^vlism Mean? 

One of the most interesting phases of the entire Loyalism question pre- 
sented itself when the contest for independence was over. What was to be 
done with these people who had lost fortune as well as country in trying to 
serve their King? It was not an easy problem to solve. It could hardly be 
expected that the nation which they attempted to destroy should care for 
them. This fact was recognized at the verj'^ outset of the peace negotiations. 
Great Britain insisted on compensation to the Loyalists whose estates had 
been seized and forfeited. Her Commissioners tried hard to persuade Frank- 
lin, Adams and Jaj'' to do justice to these unfortunate people. Daj's were 
spent in discussing this point ; the English Commissioners insisting and ours 
as persistently refusing to make reparation. 

There were various reasons for this attitude on the part of our Commis- 
sioners. That the Loyalists by their advice, falsehoods and misrepresentations 
had not onlj^ done much to bring on the war, but were also largely instru- 
mental in prolonging it, there is no room to question ; they were therefore in 
some measure the authors of their own misfortune. Many had taken up arms 
and aided in plundering and murdering their loyal fellow citizens. The prop- 
erty which had been confiscated had more than once changed owners and its 
retiirn to its original owners was almost an impossibility in many cases. Be- 
sides, the country was in no condition to recompense its own citizens who had 
lost their property, much less to settle the demands of its enemies. Congress 
had instructed the Commissioners to enter into no negotiations respecting the 
claims of the Loyalists unless Great Britain agreed to make compensation for 
the property of American citizens destroyed by her. 

Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Treaty as finally concluded, deal with this vexed 
question. Article 5 provided that " Congress should recommend to the several 
States to provide for the restitution of certain of the confiscated estates ; that 
certain persons should be allowed a year to endeavor to recover their estates ; 
that persons having rights in confiscated lands should have the privilege of 
pursuing all lawful means to regain them ; and that Congress should use its 
recommendatory powers to cause the States to revoke or reconsider their con- 
fiscation laws. Congress imanimously assented to this arrangement, and is- 
sued the recommendation to the States which the treatj^ contemplated." 



(160) 

In the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons this partial 
abandonment of the Loyalist created a violent discussion. Mr. Wilberforce 
said he saw his country humiliated thereby. Lord Mulgrave regarded it as a 
lasting national disgrace. Edmund Burke declared these people had risked 
their all and the nation owed them protection. Mr. Sheridan execrated the 
treatment the nation was giving these unfortunates, and he denounced as a 
crime, the giving of them into the hands of their enemies, the victims of con- 
fiscation, tyranny, resentment and oppression. Lord Walsingham declared 
he could scarce speak of the dishonor with patience. Lord Townsend said it 
was a circumstance of such cruelty as had never been heard of. Lord 
Stormond asserted that Britain was bound by justice, honor, affection and 
gratitude to provide for and protect them. Lord Loughborough believed that 
neither in ancient nor modern history had there been such a shameful deser- 
tion of men who had sacrificed all to duty and to their reliance upon 
British faith. 

Of course the Ministry, defended their treaty. The Prime INIinister said 
" I have but one answer to give the House ; it is the answer I gave my own 
bleeding heart. A part must be wounded that the whole of the empire may 
not perish. If better terms could be had, think you that I would not have 
embraced them? I had but the alternative either to accept the terms pro- 
posed, or continue the war." There appear to be good reasons for believing 
that the Commissioners on both sides were of the opinion that little of benefit 
would flow out of the articles in the treaty, to the Loyalists, and that the 
parties on either side who had suffered by the war, would have to look each to 
his own country for reparation, and so indeed the sequel proved. In some 
instances Loyalists succeeded in getting back part or all of their landed estate 
but these were exceptional cases rather than the rule. Most of them never 
recovered anj-thing and were compelled to end their lives in exile and poverty. 

What Did Loyalism Represent? 

What, it may be asked, did Loyalism represent? It stood up for law 
against all forms of rel^ellion. It stood for the established order of things. 
It was first, last, and all the time for the unitj^ of the British Empire. At 
the same time it did not uphold the colonial system of the mother country in 
its entirety. Far from it. Before the actual breaking out of hostilities, as 
veil as for some time after, the Loyalists were quite as anxious as the Whigs 
to have existing abuses corrected. But they proceeded through legally or- 
ganized forms to bring these ends about. It must be remembered they were 
Americans as well as the Whigs, and as truly attached to their native country 
as the latter. But they believed and hoped that justice could be better secured 
by mild measures than by force and that the better sense of the English nation 
would in the end right their wrongs. 

The views- of a few prominent Loyalists may here be given. Dr. Myles 
Cooper, the President of King's College, now Columbia University, and the 
recognized Loyalist leader among the clergy, while he held and said " God 
established the laws of government, ordained the British power and com- 
manded all to obey authority " ; open disrespect to government was " an un- 



(161) 

pardonable crime"; "the iirinciples of submission and obedience to lawful 
authority are inseparable from a sound, genuine member of the Church of 
England as an,y religious principle " ;6 j^et Dr. Cooper thought the duty on im- 
ported tea " dangerous to constitxitional liberty," and declared the Stamp Act 
to be contrary to American rights, and favored the opposition to the duties 
on paper, glass and other articles." 

Dr. Samuel Seabury, another prominent Loyalist, declared " My ancestors 
^vere among the first Englishmen who settled in America. I have no interests 
but in America. I have not a relative out of it that I know of. Yet, let me 
die ! but I had rather be reduced to the last shilling, than that the imperial 
dignity of Great Britain should sink, or be controlled by any people or power 
on earth."8 Still another used this language : " My most earnest wish is for 
the happiness of America. I consider Great Britain and her colonies as but 
one body, which must be affected throughout by the sufferings of any one 
member. I consider them as constituting one great and illustrious family, 
to which I have the honor to belong ; and I pray that its tranquilitj^ may be 
speedily restored, and that peace and harmony may forever reign through 
every part of it."9 

There can be no question about the sincerity and honesty of these men. 
Ihey were of the highest character. Immediately prior to the Revolution, the 
main distinction between the Whigs and Loyalists was what shape opposition 
to the acts of the English Parliament should take. Both sides held that in- 
justice was being done to America. It was only a few ultra Tories who upheld 
the acts of the British government in their entirety. 

Such were the views of the Loyalists up to the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. After that they w^ere reluctantly compelled to believe that the hour for 
ai'gument and persuasion was past, and that the integrity and security of the 
British Empire could be secvired only by pulling down the rising revolutionary 
spirit by force of arms. 

Demanding Recompense for Their Losses. 

The efforts of the Loyalists to secure recognition in the Treaty of Paris 
compelled them to enter upon a campaign for recompense from the British 
Government direct. As all parties agreed thejf^ had been ruined through their 
adherence to the King, public sentiment in Bi'itain leaned toward compensa- 
tion. They went to work with a will. They sought to bring the case before 
the people to arouse pviblic sentiment in their favor. An agency was estab- 
lished to take charge of affairs, and a committee appointed consisting of one 
delegate from each of the Thirteen American States. By their direction a 
pamphlet was prepared and published in 1783 called " The Case and Claim of 
the American Loyalists, impartially stated and considered." The great au- 
thorities on international law of that day, Vattel and Puffendorf, were quoted 
and the arguments were in reality very strong. They had taken up arms at 

6 A Friendly Address, etc., p. 5. 

7 Ibid., p. 43. 

8 A View of the Controversy, etc., p. 23. 

9 Chandler, What think ye of Congress now? pp. 44-48. 



(162) 

the request of the King, and the latter was in honor bound to consider their 
claims. In fact, at the opening of Parliament, the King in the speech from 
the throne made reference to the " American sufferers," who, from motives of 
loyalty to him, had relinquished their properties or professions, and trusted 
that " generous attention would be shown to them." An act was passed creat- 
ing a Board of Commissioners to examine and pass upon the claims of all 
.such persons ; thej^ were also directed that in case any of these persons 
claimed greater amounts than thej^ had lost, they were to .receive no compen- 
sation whatever. 

To get at the loyalty and conduct of these Loyalists, the Commission 
classified them under six heads. First : Those who had rendered services to 
Great Britain. Second : Those who had borne arms for Great Britain. Third : 
Uniform Loyalists. Fourth : Loyal British subjects resident in Great Britain. 
Fifth : Loyalists who had taken oaths to the American States, but afterwards 
joined the British. And, lastly, such Loyalists who had borne arms for the 
American States, but who afterwards joined the British army or navy. 

The claimants set forth the character of the losses they had sustained. In 
adju.sting these losses, there was often a great discrepancy between the 
amounts claimed and those allowed. In some cases the full claim was allowed, 
but in others only fractional sums, while still others got nothing at all, 
chieflj^ owing to their inability to prove their claims. This naturally gave 
rise to much complaint. The time limit in which claims could be presented 
was March 26, 1784. By that time 2,063 claims were handed in. and the aggre- 
f^ate of the amounts claimed was $35,231,390. A second, third, fourth and 
fifth report was submitted, each representing additional claims and allowances 
that had been jmssed upon. Bj^ April 5, 1788, the Commissioners had passed 
upon and examined one thousand six hundred and eighty claims, and had 
liquidated the same for $9,437,740. That the long delay in adjusting these 
claims should call out loud complaints was to be expected. A petition had 
been presented to Parliament in which it was said, " It is impossible to de- 
scribe the poignant distress under which many of these persons now labor, 
and which must daily increase, should the justice of Parliament be delaj^ed 
until all the claims are liquidated. Ten years have elapsed since many of 
them have been deprived of their fortunes, and, with their helpless families, 
reduced from independent affluence to poverty and want; some of them now 
languishing in British jails, others indebted to their creditors, who have lent 
them money barely sutficient to support their existence, and who, unless 
speedily relieved, must sink more than the value of their claims when received, 
and be in a Avorse condition than if they had never made them ; others have 
already sunk under the pressure and severity of their misfortunes." 

Whether that picture is overdrawn it is, of course, impossible for us at 
this time to saj'. Certain it is, however, there must have been a great amount 
of distress among these unfortunate people. In 1778 a tract supposed to have 
been written by the most pronounced of all Pennsylvania Loyalists, Joseph 
Gallawaj', reiterates all the above statements. He says, " It is well known that 
this delay of justice has produced the most melancholy and shocking events. 
A number of the sufferers have been driven by it into insanity and become 
their own destroyers, leaving behind them their helpless widows and orphans 



(163) 

to subsist upon the cold chai'ity of strangers. Others have been sent to culti- 
vate a wilderness for their subsistence, without having the means, and com- 
pelled through want to throw themselves on the mercy of the American 
States and the charity of their former friends, to support the life which might 
have been made comfortable bj' the money long since due from the British 
Government ; and many others, with their families, are barely subsisting iipon 
a temporary allowance from Government — a mere pittance when compared 
with the sum due them." 

Still later the eleventh report was made, at which time the entire number 
of claimants is restated, including those in England, Nova Scotia, New Bruns- 
wick and Canada, at 5,072, of whom 952 either withdrew or did not prosecute 
their claim to a conclusion. The losses submitted in this last amended sched- 
ule were $40,130,225, and the sum allowed was $16,462,260, or about 40 per 
cent, of the amoimts claimed. And yet it must be conceded that these i)eople 
fared perhaps as well as manj'' of the Whigs, whose propertj'^ was often seized 
by raiding parties of the contending armies, often without compensation, but 
iiiore frequently paid for in a curi'^ncy so depreciated that they got only a 
fraction of its actual value. 

FuRTPiER Measures fob Eelief. 

It is impossible to regard without feelings of pity the conditions and fate 
of the Loyalists after the treaty of peace made in 1783. Their all had been 
staked on the results of the conflict, and they had lost. Their future pros- 
perity was dependent upon the success of the British arms. The treaty of 
peace sounded the death knell of their hopes. They were aware that their 
victorious countrymen hated them even more than they hated the English, 
and that they had nothing to expect from them. It is true that the British 
ministry made a long and honest effort to protect them in their property. 
The fourth article in the treaty stipulated that the creditors on either side 
should " meet with no lawful impediment " in endeavoring to recover their 
good debts. The fifth article stipulated that the Congress of the United States 
should " earnestly recommend " to the several states the restoration of the 
rights and possesions of " real British subjects," and of Loyalists who had not 
borne arms against their countr^mien. All other Loyalists were to be allowed 
to go into any state within twelve months to settle their affairs and recover 
their confiscated properties upon paying the purchasers the sale pi'ice. The 
sixth article was to the effect that no further confiscation should be made, 
that all imprisoned Loyalists should be released, and that further persecutions 
should not be permitted. 

But in many localities these stipulations were disregarded. It was con- 
tended that no forfeited property should be restored, inasmuch as Great Brit- 
ain refused compensation to Whigs whose projierty had been destroyed. In 
New York, manj^ who returned under the terms of the treaty of peace were 
" insulted, tarred, feathered, and whipped, and even hamstrung." 

^lany of them, however, expatriated themselves forever, and these com- 
posed the very flower of the Loyalist party. They had sought refuge in various 
parts of the British Empire, in England, Scotland, Ireland, Nova Scotia and 



(164) 

various parts of Canada. But the real exodus began only after the treaty of 
peace had been made. Companies were formed by the well to do, which char- 
tered ships to transport themselves to chosen asylums, while the poorer ones 
were carried away by the British government. On April 26, 1783, twenty ves- 
sels carried 7,000 to Nova Scotia. By August of the same year. 18.000 had 
arrived at St. Johns, and 10,000 more were expected. By December 16. about 
30,000 had arrived, and among them were 3,000 negroes. lo 

For several years this stream of emigration continued to flow northward. 
" Within the period of one year, Shelburn grew into a city of 1,400 houses and 
12,000 people. At the mouth of the St. John Eiver, a town of more than 2,000 
had sprung up in a year."ii And still they continued to flow in from all direc- 
tions. The estimates of the Avhole number of Loyalists who settled in Nova 
Scotia vary from 28,347 to 40.000. England supplied as many as 33.682 rations, 
and as late as 1785 was still feeding 26,317 refugees. Counting all the Loj'al- 
ists who had sought refuge in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton and 
Prince Edward's Island, there were 35,000 who found new homes in those 
regions.i2 Besides, 20,000 had taken refuge in Canada proper. The entire 
period occupied by the dispersion of the Loyalists reached twelve years subse- 
quent to 1775, and perhaps included in all as many as 60,000 souls.is 

But sending them to her outlying provinces was not all Great Britain did 
for these unfortunate people. Before the crowning stroke came, she had many 
of them claiming her assistance. Home and lands had been sacrificed through 
their lo3^alty to the mother country, and they claimed her assistance in their 
hour of need. Many prominent men from New York and Boston early fled to 
London, where they were either given positions or temporary annuities. The 
many who went to Canada and Nova Scotia were given food and shelter. 
Houses and barracks were built for them. The plan was to make them self- 
supporting as far as possible. The men were employed on farms or given 
lands as tenants. Fuel, beds and household utensils were supplied them. 

How Some Webe Compensated. 

It is to England's credit that she fairly accepted the responsibility thus 
thrown upon her. Not only did she lose her most valuable colonies and incur 
a great war debt, but now this new burden also came along. The masses of 
the Loyalists were given lands, seeds, tools and provisions in British North 
America. " To the better classes, the churchmen, army officers and public offi- 
cials, were given either larger land grants, lucrative positions in the army 
and navy, state or church, or pensions. Losses were made good in proportion 
to the services rendered."i4 

Surveying lands in Nova Scotia for the settlement of Loj'alists began as 
early as 1782. By 1784, 1,000,000 acres had been surveyed at a cost of $24,175, 

10 Jones' History of New York, Vol. 11, p. 494. 
Canadian Archives, 1894. 

11 Canadian Archives, 1894, p. 417. 

12 Canadian Archives, 1894, pp. 413-23. 

13 Flick, P13. 179-180. 

14 Flick, pp. 189-190. 



(165) 

and divided into lots ; but the demand exceeded the supply, and still more 
lands were surveyed. Loyalists were exempted from the payment of fees and 
quit-repts for ten years. Boards to the value of $27,500 were given them. 
Nails, glass, shingles, bricks and carpenters' tools were also supplied them. 
The King ordered ironwork for grist and saw-mills and other things to be 
sent them. For surveys, tools, lumber and seeds, fully $100,000 were spent in 
two years and a half, and about $4,500,000 in transportation, provisions, 
clothing, etc., during the first two and a half years. is 

In Canada proper things proceeded much along the same lines. Land 
surveys began in 1783, and eight townships were at once surveyed. There 
v/as no absolute uniformity in size of the land grants. The rule was to give 
every adult male and every widow 200 acres. By an Act of the Provincial 
Council, 200 acres were also granted to every son and daughter of Loyalists 
when they attained their majority. In upper Canada, 3,200,000 acres were 
given to Loyalists who had settled there prior to 1787. Huts were at once 
built, as the grantees were required to settle on their lands at once ; but a 
few years later, these were replaced with comfortable houses. In every way, 
the government lent its assistance. All their requests for tools were granted, 
An axe, a hoe, a plow and a spade were allotted to every two families until 
all were supplied; a whip and cross-cut saw to every fourth family; to every 
fifth family, a set of carpenter's tools, pick-axes, sickles, grindstones, corn- 
mills, grist-mills ; and one cow to everj' two families. At first, firearms were 
denied them, but later were also furnished, that the people might provide 
themselves with game and wild fowl. About $4,000,000 were spent in supply- 
ing these Canadian Loyalists. In the end, they became a prosperous and 
loyal people, and their descendants are to-day her best and most loyal colonial 
citizens. 

Those Who Crossed the Ocean. 

It still remains to tell how those Loyalists fared who had early in the 
struggle gone to England. They were for the most part the well-to-do class, — 
men who owned property but who could not carry it with them and were 
therefore wholly dependent upgn the British government. There was, of 
course, a general exodus of the public officials, who from their positions had 
become specially obnoxious to the Whigs. The support it was thought would 
be only temporary, and began after 1775. There was no rule or uniformity 
in the payment either as to amount or time. At first, the payments were made 
quarterly', and later annually. By 1782, there were 315 recipients who re- 
ceived $200,000 in the aggregate. The amounts ran fi'om $100 to $2,500 each. 
The increasing number of pensioners I'esulted in an investigation, in conse- 
quence of which 81 names were dropped, reducing the aggregate yearly sum 
from $200,000 to $158,500; but 428 new claims were admitted in 1782, on 
which $87,000 additional were allowed, making the grant for 1783, $245,725. 
Only 25 applications were refused. The claims were on account of loyalty, 
actual losses and positive need. One, John Tabor Kempe, who took $70,000 
to England with him, applied for an annuity, but was refused. He had, how- 
ever, lost £98,000. All classes, from aristocratic landholders to emancipated 

13 Canadian Archives, 1894. 



( 166 ) 

s!aves, from colleg-e presidents, soldiers, sailors, brewers, lawyers, doctors, 
shopkeepers, and farmers, were represented in the applications. 

In all, 5,072 Loyalists presented claims for losses. Even the King urged 
rarliament to treat the Loyalists with " a due and generous attention." As a 
result, a commission was appointed by Parliament in 1785 to classify the 
" losses and services of those who had suffered in their rights, properties and 
professions on account of their loyalty." The commission went to work at 
once, and soon discovered their task was no easy one. All claims were to be 
presented by March 25, 1784 ; but the time was later extended to 1790. On 
the first date, 2,053 claims had been presented, representing losses in real and 
personal property amounting to $35,231,000, and .$11,770,000 in debts, and 
$443,000 in incomes, or a total of nearly $47,500,000. By 1788, 1,680 claims had 
been adjusted, on which $9,448,000 were allowed. 

Still More Claims. 

It was soon found that justice could not be done to these Loyalists unless 
commissioners took evidence in America. Such were accordingly sent both to 
Halifax and New York. The claims passed upon were 1,408, asking for nearly 
$7,000,000, on which $2,745,000 were allowed. The commissioners in this 
country gave three years to the work. Every effort was made to deal fairly 
with claimants ; but the claims were " padded " to the utmost extent. ' Alto- 
gether 5,072 claims were presented, amounting to $50,411,000. Of that number, 
3,184 were allowed, and over $19,000,000 Avere awarded and paid. The total 
outlay on the part of England on account of the Loyalists, during and after 
the war, was not less than $30,000,000. A few of the largest claims were the 
following : 

Allowed. 

Frederick Philipse, Jr., claimed $770.000 $210,000 

Sir John Johnson " 516.000 223,000 

Oliver De Lancy " 390,000 125,000 

Beverly Robinson " 344.000 148,000 

James De Lancy " 284,000 160,000 

Note. — I have not found anj- lists of Lancaster County Loyalists who were 
deported or sent elsewhere, although they were plentiful. An incident came 
under my personal notice that throws some light on the question may be 
given. Nearly fifty years ago, I stood at the foot of that " world's wonder " 
the Falls of Niagara gazing on the sublime sight. An elderly gentleman 
approached me and began a conversation. I at once thought I detected the 
well known Pcunsijlvania German accent in his talk, and the longer he talked 
the more surely it became evident to me that there was Pennsylvania-German 
blood in him, and I told him so, and told him besides there were scores of 
men of his name and lineage in Lancaster County, Penna. Then he told me 
his grandfather and a good many more from Pennsylvania^ — from what county 
he did not remember — had been deported to Canada where they founded a 
small hamlet and where their descendants are still living. He had these par- 
ticulars from his father who was a bov at that time. 



Minutes of the November Meeting. 



Lancaster, Ta., Nov. 7, 1919. 

The Historical Society met at their usual place this evening, XovemVxn' 7, 
1919. 

Treasurer A. K. Hostetter reported a balance of $187.46 on hand. 

Librarian Harry Stehman's report showed the following donations dur- 
ing the month : 

A score of old Lancaster City directories from E. C. Steigerwalt. 

An old sun dial from J. B. Moltz, of Allenhurst, N. J. 

A pamphlet on William Henry, of Lancaster, by his great great grandson, 
Clarence A Wolle, of Bethlehem. 

Exchanges from- the American Catholic Historical Society, the Historical 
Society of Western Pennsylvania and the Bucks County Historical SocietJ^ 

A Pennsylvania Public Service Commission publication on Natural Gas 
Companies. 

A Lancaster City Director^' of 1884, presented by Albert K. Hostetter. 

A pamphlet entitled " The Juliana Library Co. in Lancaster," written by 
Judge C. I. Landis and presented by him. 

Rev. C. B. Heller, of Salisbury. Md., was nominated for membership : and 
Hon. M. E. and ]Mrs. Hoffman, of Maytown, B. F. Hoffman, of Bainbridge. 
H. D. Malschnee, of Manheim, and Ross Myers, of Lancaster, were elected 
members. 

The paper of the evening was a continuation of a paper on " Loyalists in 
the Revolution," prepared by F. E. Diffenderffer, Litt.D., and was read by 
President Charles L Landis. 



(167) 



LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 
011 801 888 6 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 801 888 6 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



